It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WTC Detonations Finally Revealed (Video)

page: 24
104
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Please explain how the building is able to rotate to the angle it does, if the pivot point is not where I estimate it to be?

It also requires a diagonal failure across the structure which just isn't possible unless something went wrong during the intentional weakening of the internal structure.

As plube has already adequately demonstrated, more than just simple failure due to damage was going on in those towers. In that case, the top floors ABOVE the damage started to collapse BEFORE the area that was hit! I digress......

Several other points for you to consider (as it is rarely individual points that prove a theory):

* Top part of NT collapses ahead of the weakened area

* Top of ST topples, requiring a simultaneous diagonal failure across the building (remember - we aren't talking about thin strips of metal - we are talking about a static mass of approximately 25,000 tons supported by very large steel columns!). I estimate the entire tower to have a mass of some 450,000 tons each.

* There are clearly recorded seismic events of Mag. 2.1 (ST) and Mag. 2.4 (NT) some 10 seconds ahead of any visible collapse. This event is also captured in several videos, the best being that of the fixed camera part way up a building looking at the WTC. The recordings were from NIST, and source triangulates on the site of the WTC. There is a very good thread on this going back a couple of years - search for LaBTop in the forum.

* How did the BBC end up reporting the collapse of building 7 23 minutes early? It is a big-ass building, and unless someone was feeding them information, there is no way in hell anyone could have thought about reporting it ahead of schedule, and so accurately!!!!! This demonstrates planning. The question is - who was the source of this info? The BBC obviously didn't check their facts before reporting, but that doesn't change the fact someone told them about it (23 minutes too early!). You can't rig a building in 6 hours and demo it, unless it is already rigged. It stinks even more when the official reason for its collapse was damage and fire.

* How was it most of the alleged hijackers were later found alive and well?

* Massive short selling of stocks on the stock market on the airlines involved.

Until you can demonstrate, with facts and sources, that the above has nothing to do with pre-planned CD, I am not prepared to engage you further in this discussion. The answers I have outstanding are who, when, and why, because the OS does not stand up to scrutiny.

We know that the weekend before the attack, the WTC was closed for 3 days whilst "maintenance work" was carried out. This included the removal of all security personnel. This time was adequate to rig the building (note that it would only need to be rigged in key locations, tidiness not being a goal of the final outcome).


edit on 11-9-2010 by mirageofdeceit because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

Please explain how the building is able to rotate to the angle it does, if the pivot point is not where I estimate it to be?


Because some places are damaged more than others. Since we don't exactly know the internal damage we can't exactly predict the behavior.



It also requires a diagonal failure across the structure which just isn't possible unless something went wrong during the intentional weakening of the internal structure.


Or it was caused by unintentional weakening such as the position and angle the plane hit or the way the fire developed. Diagonal unpredictable failure is what you expect if a plane crash is the cause. With demolition you expect failure to start at one floor.



As plube has already adequately demonstrated, more than just simple failure due to damage was going on in those towers. In that case, the top floors ABOVE the damage started to collapse BEFORE the area that was hit! I digress......


And I demonstrated that analysis was wrong, and the collapse in fact did start exactly at the point the visible damage was greatest. Plube agreed the red line he drew was not the point of impact. A new animated demonstration, preferably using the video I posted as that is much clearer, needs to be made, where the red line is placed at the correct location. The illusion that the collapse started above the damage will then completely be gone.

You can also just carefully examine the video I posted, and especially try to identify markings that show whether a certain section is moving or not. You will see that the complete top section is falling down exactly at the point of the damage, after which it will disappear (meaning it is obscured) in the dust. Nowhere you will see the top section disintegrate or collapse into itself.



Several other points for you to consider (as it is rarely individual points that prove a theory):



Maybe some other time, I think it is better to tackle one issue at the time.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


I did not know there are standard figures available to calculate this crush up effect (can't find it using Google either). Can you give me a source for this? It seems to me this figure is completely dependent on the way the structure is build, so it should be totally different for every building. How did the writer conclude that linear decrease over 24 floors was correct for the WTC buildings?


edit on 12-9-2010 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


please do not add things into what i said...now that is completely wrong about the red line statement...i said the red lines point was to show the structural integrity below the impact and as the top colapse was occuring it was still intact indicating that it was not a progressive collapse...

as for crush up


"5. Why Can Crush-Up Not Begin Later? The discusser further
states that “it is difficult to imagine, again from a basic
physical standpoint, how the possibility of the occurrence of
crush-up would diminish as the collapse progressed.” Yet the
discusser could have imagined it easily, even without calculations,
if he considered the free-body equilibrium diagram
of compacted layer B, as in Fig. 2f of the paper. After
including the inertia force, it immediately follows from this
diagram that the normal force in the supposed crush up front
acting upward onto Part C is
Fc = Fc − delta(F),
deltaF = mcg − mcv˙ B = mcg − v˙ B
where Fc=normal force at the crush-down front; mc=mass of
the compacted zone B; vB= [(1−gamma(z))z˙+z˙ /2] =average velocity of zone B; and v˙ B=its acceleration. The acceleration
v˙ B rapidly decreases because of mass accretion of zone B and
becomes much smaller than g, converging to g/3 near the
end of crush down Bažant et al. 2007. This is one reason
that Fc is much larger than Fc . After the collapse of a few
stories, mass mc becomes enormous. This is a further reason
that the normal force Fc in the supposed crush-up front becomes
much smaller than Fc in the crush-down front. When
the compacted zone B hits the ground, vB suddenly drops to
zero, the force difference delta(F) suddenly disappears, and then
the crush-up phase can begin.
The discussers’ statement that “the yield and deformation
strength of . . . Part C would be very similar to the yield and
deformation strength of . . . the lower structure” shows a
misunderstanding of the mechanics of failure. Aside from the
fact that “deformation strength” is a meaningless term deformation
depends on the load but has nothing to do with
strength, this statement is irrelevant to what the discussers
try to assert. It is the normal force in the upper Part C that is
much smaller, not necessarily the strength or load capacity
of Part C per se. Force Fc acting on Part C upward can easily
be calculated from the dynamic equilibrium of Part C see
Fig. 2g, and it is found that Fc never exceeds the column
crushing force of the overlying story. This confirms again
that the crush-up cannot restart until the compacted layer hits
the ground."


bhou and zant paper



This may be the best single example of how gullible people can be when confronted by a scientific sounding idea from an authority figure. In plain english he is saying that crush down, then crush up must occur in real buildings because the upper columns are sufficiently strong to not buckle upwards while riding down on a magical cushion of debris. He said the same thing in the previous point 4.

Many of Bazant's readers still believe that some imaginary "upper block" in WTC1 rode a layer of rubble down to the earth, itself relatively undamaged. According to Bazant's most recent publications he still believes it himself.

He has obviously been applying his 1-D model in which the concept of crush down, then crush up is considered real and up, down movement occurs through successive column buckling to WTC1 quite literally. Many of his readers in the 9/11 debate have also without realizing that the argument rests on the strength of the "upper block" columns, as Bazant claims twice in this paper.

Notice the irony in his closing remarks, BL pg 921 column 1:

"Closing Comments
Although everyone is certainly entitled to express his or her opinion
on any issue of concern, interested critics should realize that,
to help discern the truth about an engineering problem such as the
WTC collapse, it is necessary to become acquainted with the
relevant material from an appropriate textbook on structural mechanics.
Otherwise critics run the risk of misleading and wrongly
influencing the public with incorrect information."

You mean incorrect information about how crush down, then crush up from a 1-D stick model in which damage is propagated upwards and downwards through column buckling can be applied to real buildings, especially WTC1 and 2? That kind of incorrect information? This forum provides proof that many people still believe the concept of crush down, then crush up can be applied to real buildings without understanding on what the argument originally rests.


source

now as i said i have to read deep when it comes to these matters...but the importance is as i stated earlier in to the materials used....no my interpretatin is as many othere...the inner core below the mass was so substantial the crush up would proceed more than mere milimeters into the mass coming down...especially when you consider the masses were completely different. NT was aproximately 28 flloors of mass...and ST was aproximately 15 floors of mass now that is 13 floors of mass unnaccounted for in their paper.

which is close enough to a 50% error in their calculations....now your the master....is that an acceptable amount of error in any equation...not sure if i would have passed if i showed 50% margin of error in any of my building designs.

with that kind of error all buildings would suffer progressive collapse.




edit on 033030p://f43Sunday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube

please do not add things into what i said...now that is completely wrong about the red line statement...i said the red lines point was to show the structural integrity below the impact and as the top colapse was occuring it was still intact indicating that it was not a progressive collapse...


The whole point of a progressive top down collapse is that the floors below the impact point remains intact untill the mass reaches that floor. So that fact that the floor you highlighted remains intact is the indicator it is a progressive top down collapse. Would it have collapsed before the mass of the top section reached it, you could argue it is no longer a progressive top down collapse.



as for crush up

now as i said i have to read deep when it comes to these matters...but the importance is as i stated earlier in to the materials used....no my interpretatin is as many othere...the inner core below the mass was so substantial the crush up would proceed more than mere milimeters into the mass coming down...especially when you consider the masses were completely different. NT was aproximately 28 flloors of mass...and ST was aproximately 15 floors of mass now that is 13 floors of mass unnaccounted for in their paper.

which is close enough to a 50% error in their calculations....now your the master....is that an acceptable amount of error in any equation...not sure if i would have passed if i showed 50% margin of error in any of my building designs.

with that kind of error all buildings would suffer progressive collapse.


The paper is about the south tower, so the mass of 16 floors is assumed. Anyway, do you have any (scientific) reason to accept this 24 floor figure? To me this sounds totally unreasonable, but that is just a guess based on my common sense. The figure does not seem to have any viable explanation, except that it is like you suggested a standard value (still would like to see a source for that). Do you agree this figure will be totally different for every building as well as the type of damage (for example diagonally) that occurred to the building? If so, do you also agree without giving a reasonable explanation for this figure, the calculations and conclusions in the paper are useless?



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by plube

please do not add things into what i said...now that is completely wrong about the red line statement...i said the red lines point was to show the structural integrity below the impact and as the top colapse was occuring it was still intact indicating that it was not a progressive collapse...


The whole point of a progressive top down collapse is that the floors below the impact point remains intact untill the mass reaches that floor. So that fact that the floor you highlighted remains intact is the indicator it is a progressive top down collapse. Would it have collapsed before the mass of the top section reached it, you could argue it is no longer a progressive top down collapse.

You fail to appreciate (or are totally missing the point) that the top floors spontaneously collapse, yet were not damaged.

If they were not brought down, then we can only logically expect it to start collapsing at the damage point, which it does not.

Please explain how intact floors can suddenly and spontaneously collapse above the damage point?


edit on 12-9-2010 by mirageofdeceit because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
You fail to appreciate (or are totally missing the point) that the top floors spontaneously collapse, yet were not damaged.


Every time I see a video of the towers, the floors above the impact are belching smoke and its obvious there are fires in them, and yet you claim they were undamaged.

The video I showed earlier does not show the top floors collapsing before the rest of the building.

However, if part of the upper floors moves first in the collapse, while the other parts still have some semblance of structural integrity, then the building will start to pull itself apart on the way down.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


once again the top was collapses with in itself before it even started to interact with the floors below....so in question is the the collapse at the top...and also it seems to mean nothing to you that three steel frame structures suffer a so called progressive collapse. not likely and it is obvious to me we will never agree...as even when it is presented to you over and over....you choose not to understand...well all i can do at this point is keep it being presented VIA the others with in our trade that disagree with the OS and maybe the proof that you absolutely require will show itself...and maybe by the same token you will be able to provide me with indisputable proof to see it the OS way.

As it stands at this point...i am not saying any far fetch things like ufos, holograms, missiles, bombs...i am saying that it was not the result of a progressive collapse....It was not a result of these so called hotter than hot fires...cause by jet fuel that burns at approximately at 800c within 56mins of first strike....it was not because of structural damage from and aluminium aircraft take out solid STEEL beams at 500mph.

what brought them down...i dont really know...but one day the truth will come out and it is not the OS.

and posting to you PLB has been a pleasure...and you can take this as a victory which i know you will want to...but belive me...i am just exasperated by your true ignorance and you are a masters in mathematics.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


It is just that the video evidence is directly contradicting what you are saying. I can clearly see the top section starting falling at the point where the damage is, after which it takes down the floors below it. I don't really see how anyone can disagree on this. Its in plain sight.

And as for that paper, if you do not even try to defend it, I won't put any more effort in it either.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


Again, they do not spontaneously collapse. Or else, show the evidence. Show the exact frames that show this, and mark the floors that are collapsing.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 06:32 AM
link   
A new theory that is worth investigating is directed energy weaponry-- perhaps energy from Hurricane Erin that day (which was barely mentioned)

The top down collapsing of both towers shows that the towers are turning to dust as they 'disappear'

Dr Judy Wood's website has many interesting images of this 'dustification'

www.drjudywood.com...



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by canadiansenior70
 


Seriously, the towers didn't turn to dust as they collapsed. T_T They created a massive dust plume as a result of the collapse, and it obscured the view of the towers as they finished falling. Honestly, I wish we could see what was happening to the towers under the dust, because then it could be fairly conclusively proven whether or not it was a demolition. As it is, even with the evidence that the towers failed at the point of plane impact, there isn't enough solid visual evidence to prove conclusively either way.

But as for dustification, if this truly happened, surely there wouldn't have been so much steel and material left-over, right? I mean this "it clearly turned to dust" just sounds ridiculous. It's comparable to turning a guy's wife into a pillar of salt for looking back at a city. O-o

There are examples of buildings having the energy to collapse from the top down with only one floor compromised. I've shown these videos before.



Does this wipe out your dustification theory yet? Because I swear the dust even from these buildings that have been cleaned out for demolition by top-down collapse looks a lot like the plume created by the twin towers.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by canadiansenior70
 



A new theory that is worth investigating is directed energy weaponry-- perhaps energy from Hurricane Erin that day (which was barely mentioned)


So hurricane 1000 miles offshore (which is why it wasn't mentioned much - no threat to anybody ) is responsible
for turning WTC into dust?

I heard lot of pretty stupid crap from truthers, but this goes way beyond delusional.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


"... aircraft take out solid STEEL beams at 500mph..."

Are you one of those who still aren't aware that these columns WERE NOT solid steel beams ?

They were box columns , meaning , they were HOLLOW .

The box columns had walls as thin as 1/4" towards the top of the towers . No big feat for an airplane travelling at 500mph , to tear through 1/4" steel .



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


I continue to be amazed that so many people simply do not understand the forces involved, in the airplane impacts.

It's been mentioned often, yet brushed aside as somehow "irrelevant" by some. So, I thought it'd be a good idea to search online for some sort of calculator. I found one....

....It has three boxes:

---Weight

---Speed

---Distance to stop

You can play around with the numbers and variables for yourselves. For instance, I used (just round numbers for now) 300,000 pounds, 400 MPH and 10 feet to stop. (Actually, that is the most unknown variable, because the FORCE of initial impact is harder to determine, and "stopping" distance. The initial impact was abrupt, but momentum played a role, as the mass continued on its trajectory..... So many factors....)

Anyway, using the above info it calculated the force at 80,285 TONS. Since one ton is 2,000 pounds....well, you can do the math. The variables have a direct relationship with each other, as you change them.

Here is the website:
www.crashdamagerepair.com...


Now, this gives you the total force....one needs to determine the various frontal surface areas of the airplane structure, at its points of contact, etc. To give an idea of the pounds PER SQ. INCH of force exerted, at every point.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


Quote your source for how thick the tubular beams were at the top of the towers please.

You said they were as thin as 1/4 inch.
I found that it closer to 4" thick at the top.

Link to your source please.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
I found a firefighter's paper on why the towers collapsed. He talks about all the ways the trade centers were unlike any other steel high-rise and why the Empire State building was a hundred times safer.
vincentdunn.com...



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Once we learn where babies come from it is so darned hard to give up the idea that they are not grown in cabbage patches.

Let's just forget about 4 boing-boing planes, the plane at the pentagon was a distraction for the missile that hit.

www.examiner.com...


Dr. Judy Wood, a former assistant professor at Clemson University, has developed compelling evidence that a directed energy weapon turned the physical matter of the World Trade Center towers into nanoparticles through the process of molecular dissociation. Dr. Wood demonstrates clear evidence that cannot be accounted for by the official 9/11 Commission explanation or alternative theory of military planes, cruise missiles, or other projectiles hitting the World Trade Center buildings, or a controlled demolition caused solely by "advanced explosive nano-thermitic composite material found in the World Trade Center dust," or solely by 4th generation mini-nukes.




edit on 22-9-2010 by canadiansenior70 because: switched text positions.




edit on 22-9-2010 by canadiansenior70 because: spelling



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by canadiansenior70
Once we learn where babies come from it is so darned hard to give up the idea that they are not grown in cabbage patches.

Let's just forget about 4 boing-boing planes, the plane at the pentagon was a distraction for the missile that hit.

www.examiner.com...


Dr. Judy Wood, a former assistant professor at Clemson University, has developed compelling evidence that a directed energy weapon turned the physical matter of the World Trade Center towers into nanoparticles through the process of molecular dissociation. Dr. Wood demonstrates clear evidence that cannot be accounted for by the official 9/11 Commission explanation or alternative theory of military planes, cruise missiles, or other projectiles hitting the World Trade Center buildings, or a controlled demolition caused solely by "advanced explosive nano-thermitic composite material found in the World Trade Center dust," or solely by 4th generation mini-nukes.


Seriously, you aren't even making sense with this. The quotes "assert" that no one has been able to challenge Dr. Judy Wood's idea, yet there is no evidence to support her ideas at all! Show me this magical dust that the trade centers turned into, because all I see is debris and twisted metal.


edit on 22-9-2010 by Varemia because: Fixed the extension of the quote box



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Did you not see all the dust that fell as the Towers disappeared from the top down....DUST! Everything pulverized. Even steel beams. None were shopped off to china... all those trucks coming and going were covering up the ground, with frest earth, and then hauling it away and replacing again, as people's boots were disintigrating.
Check out her Website, which appears to be in transition from one server to another, but there is still plenty to see...about fuming, rusted steel. lathering---and did you ever see a controlled demolition take off up into the stratosphere?

www.drjudywood.com...

A student of hers was killed, she has been threatened, she has been ignored, and she has stuck with this since 2001, as she saw it right from the beginning. She is the only person to have enough evidence to file a fraud suit against NIST.

Now I'll tell you that I was struck by a car in March, 2009 and 18 months later I am still healing and have all day and night to investigate conspiracies. I am doing my own research and have given you a lead to follow so do your own googling of nanodust, directed energy weapons, the fact the no one noticed the hurricane off New York because of the WTC disappearances and that's what it appears to be...they just disappeared with very little rubble left.

Don't shoot the messenger--just do your own research and thinking! Listen to her on radio talk shows, watch her videos etc. THINK! Besides, I am bullet-proof!



new topics

top topics



 
104
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join